Shit can you imagine the LSM’s reaction if Palin had said something as dumb as this shit? But Krugman says he wants a massive military buildup and deficit spending to no end to fix things, and it isn’t something to marginalize the man forever. First off, the left always wants military cuts. They hate any war their guys don’t start – case in point Lybia which we rarely if ever hear about while they continue to harp about evil Bush and his wars & tax cuts costing the economy – with a passion, yet here we have Krugman finally admitting that defense spending, in addition to giving most tax payers something of worth, also creates jobs and economic growth. Sure, it’s for the wrong reasons, but this is about the smartest thing I have heard from Krugman, and truthful, even if by accident, for a change.

Bat freaking crazy shit I tell you. But because he is a lefty, and an Obama guy, he is going to get a pass. Nobody is even going to realize he finally actually made a valid point by saying that military spending does actually add a lot more value than the left pretends it does. It certainly does a lot more than welfare, which as the British are showing us, only leads to an entitled scum class that is ready to burn and steal if their handouts are threatened.

Comments are closed.

No Hal, he was saying that what we needed was a space invasion so the stupid tea Partiers & fiscal conservatives would suddenly stop worrying about deficit spending since the US would have to then then spend massively on a military response. It’s in line with the stupid shit the guy that thought our politicians should be more like those of China, to get things done.

Hal, even if you’re right – and I think you are – so what? Imagine that Palin said it and tell me the reaction would be “Oh it’s just a hypothetical example of government spending and expansionary policy.”

Can you even imagine the non-stop mockery if Dubya said anything even remotely like this, even as a hypothetical?

Krugman may as well have just said “Boy, I wish we had some huge horrible threat so we could just spend like we want and no one would even notice, and that would just solve everything. And if we don’t have one, we should fake one”

What do you mean “if” he’s right? You’re going for The Understatement Of The Year-award? Of course he was using discussing a hypothetical.

Now what about Palin? Let’s pretend that she actually knew anything about macro economics. If she in such a discussion would argue a hypothetical, while she was for instance advocating Austrian school economics, then who would really complain? Sure as hell wouldn’t be me, unless of course, if she have me an impression of not knowing what she was talking about.

You can dislike Krugman all you like. And many do. But he knows economics. Just like a match professor knows math. He said nothing in the interview that didn’t make sense. Massive public spending can help boost an economy. That’s not controversial. Even if you don’t think that it is the right thing to do.

Well, we know there was a media frenzy over Palin’s Paul Revere gaffe. The rules are a little different though, for pundits vs. politicians as the latter are expected to be a bit more sensible. A better comparison would be if Rush Limbaugh said something like this. And, in fact, there WAS a huge furor when Limbaugh said he hoped that Obama failed to fix the country.

Frankly, this is probably the least offensive thing Krugman has said recently, even if it might be the most revealing. They accuse of us of “disaster capitalism”. WTF is this if not disaster Keynsianism?

A better comparison would be if Rush Limbaugh said something like this. And, in fact, there WAS a huge furor when Limbaugh said he hoped that Obama failed to fix the country.

Limbaugh never said the hoped Obama would fail, he said he was certain Obama would fail because what he believed in never would work. Libaugh was right. And that’s not so far. What Obama believes in doesn’t work, and the miracle days someone else might pull the collectivists’ asses out of the fire are now gone.

What seems to have happened is that when we decided we where going into Afghanistan that we told Musharraf that he was either with us or against us, and if he was against us Pakistan would be nuked to the stone age (they had nukes so any war with them was going nuclear). Musharraf reluctantly agreed to help us because he figured it wads better to be with us than against us. We seem to have forgotten the whole “trust but verify “message Reagan pointed out we should live by, because when he joined us we seem to have forgotten that the ISI, Pakistan’s secret intelligence group was the creator of the Taliban, one of the biggest terror sponsors on the planet, and not likely to just give up their great scheme. They played along for a few years while we pounded the shit out of everyone in A-stan, then Iraq, but as we became more divide and war weary, with an entire political party looking to make us lose, they figured they might as well go back to doing what they really wanted, and now, we are here, with us basically pretending they act like an enemy because we need to use bases in Pakistan to resupply Afghanistan.

I am hoping Obama keeps his campaign promise and starts bombing Pakistan. In fact, I still don’t understand why they didn’t drop a couple of 2000 pound bombs on the compound and the helicopter just in case the pyrotechnics the SEALs rigged didn’t do the job. especially with the tail remaining intact. I chalk that up to a puss decision not to piss of the Pakistanis.

uh they shared the border with a nation we were at war with.
its got a shit fuck load of muslims.
They have Nukes.
We do not want them to use the nukes on India.
By providing aid we at lest gave the impression that we gave a rats ass and they they would try to hold the hadjis in line.
Oh yeah and we needed a land route into AFG, to supply our forces.

No, he said “I hope he fails.” I heard it when he said it and I didn’t think much of it. Then the taped quote was all over the news the next day. The mainstreamers have a phalanx of over sensitive types listening to him and trying to find something to get too upset about. This is a great example of media overreaction and exclusion of his context, but he did say “I hope he fails.”-

I would say par for the course Hal. The dude seriously seems to believe this Keynesian bullshit, despite the mountain of evidence and the massive takedown done by others – try to read Walter Williams or Thomas Sullivan on the whole broken window bull – that basically make it obvious this is not just stupid, but down right destructive nonsense. I am surprised he didn’t make the point that the hooligans that stole anything they could and burned down that half of London – that’s a metaphor – they could not steal, should all be given medals for creating all these new job opportunities fixing the mess they made. After all, that’s how these guys think this all works.

The problem is that we can say Krugman is way off base again, point out the other nonsesne he said, and then nobody, especially in the LSM or in the demcoratic party, would take our pointing that out seriously, hence the focus on his “When aliens attack, our economy would be saved with military deficit spending” to stress the insanity of this guy.

My point was that Krugman didn’t just say stupid & insane things, but proved my point that the elft’s argument that defense spending is bad is just bullshit. It’s only bad when it is convenient for them to shift that money into their vote buying rackets.

Well, we know there was a media frenzy over Palin’s Paul Revere gaffe.

Which was no gaffe at all, it was 100% true and accurate. As per SOP for the LSM, the “frenzy” was totally manufactured and packaged for a LSA (Lame Stream Audience) who would eat up the minutia-ridden lie, repeat it incessantly on internet blogs and further the self-imposed trashing of conservative thought by her own so-called conservative contemporaries. How does it feel to be a tool of the left?

A better comparison would be if Rush Limbaugh said something like this. And, in fact, there WAS a huge furor when Limbaugh said he hoped that Obama failed to fix the country.

Ah, a multi-tool of the left now. Your nick ought to be “Leatherman.”

First, Limbaugh never said a thing about Obama even having the potential to “fix the country” because he doesn’t, period.

Second, what he did say was in response to an unnamed media outlet’s request around the time of Obama’s inauguration for Limbaugh (and others) to submit, “….400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency.” His response was that he didn’t need 400 words, he only needed four, and those four words are, “I hope he fails.”

Now, why any conservative would have a problem with those four words is quite well beyond me. It meant that he hoped Obama would fail at getting ObamaCare passed, fail at “making our utility bills necessarily skyrocket,” fail at installing a cadre of czars that would make an end-run around the constitutional legislative processes of law-making, would fail at quadrupling the deficit within two years of his inauguration, would fail at increasing the debt ceiling to $16 trillion, would fail at using the law enforcement agencies of this once-great nation to create an illusion of lawlessness and blood-lust by gun owners and Tea Party activists with programs such as Fast & Furious and the DHS warning memos from Napolitano’s own desk. All of these assaults to freedom and economic security, plus many more, have already taken place, and I damn sure hoped he’d fail at his agenda before these successes too. You do realize, don’t you, that an Obama successful agenda means the literal end of the Constitution? As a conservative, or even a moderate (whatever the Hell that means), the destruction, or even weakening, of the Constitution is a bad thing, right? Someone who sets out to “spread the wealth around” is someone whom conservatives should hope would fail, isn’t he?

Why anyone would criticize Limbaugh for saying out loud what every conservative should feel as a visceral reaction to all far-leftists’ agendas for this country is beyond me. I’m much more bugged by supposed conservatives’ willingness to capitulate to leftist political correctness than by Limbaugh’s and other pundits’ lack of tact while staying completely consistent with conservative ideals.

Along the same lines, our national economic growth over the next 1 to 2 years is forecast to be quite a bit higher than it would have been if Christchurch didn’t have the earthquakes. Nature attacked instead of aliens.

WRT Palin’s Revere ‘gaffe’, Fact-Check says her account was ‘badly twisted’ while PolitiFact gave it a ‘Mostly False’ rating. Both suggesting she ‘doubled-down’ when trying to explain her initial comments.

It goes back to the Cold War. India aligned with the Soviets because India’s government was heavily socialist (though democratic) and anti-British/imperialist. We therefore, supported Pakistan. The Indo-Pakistani wars were great test beds for Soviet vs. US hardware.

And I said it was 100% true and accurate, and it was. I find the subject so tediously trivial that it just barely enters the outer range of my interest-radar, but I also find the resorting to “fact-checking” websites rather than historical documentation to put forth a rebuttal easy enough to counter, so here you go:

“I observed a wood at a small distance, and made for that. When I got there, out started six officers on horseback, and ordered me to dismount. One of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me where I came from and what my name was: I told him. He asked if I was an express: I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston: I told him; and added that their troops had catched aground in passing the river, and that there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the country all the way up.”

Now, it may be possible to put Palin’s off-the-cuff answer to the question under a microscope and speculate as to what she meant, or what she knew to be true at the time, or to comment mockingly at all the “uh…er..and umm’s” in her answer, but the bottom line fact of the matter is that Paul Revere did warn the British of the Colonists gathering to engage the British in a battle. That is 100% true and accurate. All the rest about what she meant or knew at the time is 100% conjecture, and a transparent effort by the promoters of such trivialities to further the meme of Palin being a dunce. It’s as weak a political ploy as to dismiss liberals as “emotional retards,” wouldn’t you agree?

And I said it was 100% true and accurate, and it was. I find the subject so tediously trivial that it just barely enters the outer range of my interest-radar, but I also find the resorting to “fact-checking” websites rather than historical documentation to put forth a rebuttal easy enough to counter….

I completely agree at how tediously trivial much of the ‘gotcha’ events are, no matter who is involved. And yes I would 100% agree that it’s as weak a political ploy if people concentrate on errors or gaffes that are meaningless.

Not sure what you mean about ‘resorting’ to fact-checking websites though. I would hope they rely on the historical documention when it’s relevant (such as in this case). If they fail and get it wrong, that’s something I would hope gets picked up. But in both cases they include the passage you’ve provided. They are saying that Palin was claiming (as her main point) that the aim of his ride was to warn the British (“that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms”), when in fact Revere says himself that he rode to warn fellow rebels Samuel Adams and John Hancock that the British were coming to arrest them.